Rodrigues

Rodrigues v. Superior Court

Good Law
127 Cal. App. 4th 1027·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 403·2005 Daily Journal DAR 3485·26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 194·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2558
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 2005H025985California4,141 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rushing, J.

Introduction

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), requires the trial court in a civil action to grant relief from default when the defaulting party’s attorney files an affidavit attesting that the default was the product of his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. The question now before us is whether an affidavit so attesting entitles the defaulting party to mandatory relief if it is executed by an attorney not licensed to practice in California, but licensed in another jurisdiction. We have concluded that granting relief in such circumstances is consistent with both the language and the remedial purpose of the statute. Accordingly we will deny a petition seeking a writ of mandate to set aside an order granting relief on the basis of an affidavit of fault signed by a Portuguese attorney.

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Maria Rodrigues brought this action with respect to certain residential real property in San Jose, which had been purchased as an investment by defendants Fernando Machado Joaquim and Maria Machado, who are married. Plaintiff claimed an undivided half interest in the property, and sought to partition it by…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.